Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mk 1:2

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    In Mk 1:2 par, both Mt and Lk do not have the Malachi quote. Both cite it later at Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27, but not here. Did they both omit it, because it is not
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 26, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      In Mk 1:2 par, both Mt and Lk do not have the Malachi quote.
      Both cite it later at Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27, but not here. Did they both omit it,
      because it is not from Isaiah? Did they read it at all in their copy of
      Mark? Did they have a different source?
      What do you think?


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:wie@...
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • gentdave1
      Last time I looked at this one I remember it looked like an insertion in Mark s text. I think Fledderman makes the argument that the Q version is earlier,
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 27, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Last time I looked at this one I remember it looked like an insertion in Mark's text. I think Fledderman makes the argument that the "Q" version is earlier, and may have some valid points. Also, it looks like an interpolation in Mark. You can take it out and the text is smoother.

        My hypothesis would be that it is originally authored in Matthew and/or a saying source. Luke picks it up from there, and it is a late addition to the text of Mark.

        Dave Gentile
        Naperville IL

        --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
        >
        > In Mk 1:2 par, both Mt and Lk do not have the Malachi quote.
        > Both cite it later at Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27, but not here. Did they both omit it,
        > because it is not from Isaiah? Did they read it at all in their copy of
        > Mark? Did they have a different source?
        > What do you think?
        >
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        > --------------------------
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:wie@...
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > Textcritical commentary:
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
        >
      • Ron Price
        Wieland & Dave, Just a few comments on this rather complex case. Firstly there is no textual evidence for the omission of the Malachi quotation in Mk 1:2.
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 29, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland & Dave,

          Just a few comments on this rather complex case.

          Firstly there is no textual evidence for the omission of the Malachi
          quotation in Mk 1:2.

          Secondly it appears quite natural in the text of Mark (apart from the
          erroneous attribution to Isaiah), where it was probably the author's prior
          plan to present John the Baptist as God's messenger.

          Thirdly the hypothetical "Q" appears to have led some commentators astray.
          Thus Davies & Allison (Matthew, II, 250) observe the closeness in wording
          between Mk 1:2b and Mt 11:10, but struggle to explain it because they are
          constrained to see the latter as Q, and so cannot admit the simplest
          explanation, i.e. that Mt 11:10 was influenced by Mk 1:2b.

          Fleddermann puts forward four arguments that Mark was here dependent on Q
          (Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 370). His confidence is not justified.
          In all four he claims in effect that 'Q' has the better (more natural) text
          or context and therefore Mark was dependent on Q. If one were to assume that
          Mt 11:2-11 // Lk 7:18-28 was part of Q as he does, then his arguments seem
          plausible. But his synoptic theory does not allow him even to contemplate
          the simpler view that here Matthew could have made improvements to Mark just
          as he did, for instance, in many of the 'Minor Agreements', and most notably
          in the prologue to Jesus' ministry with the grand genealogy and birth
          narratives.

          My conclusion is that Matthew omitted Mk 1:2b in the parallel Mt 3:3 mainly
          because of the incorrect attribution and perhaps partly because he was
          intending to use the Malachi quotation later. Luke had his eye on Matthew as
          well as Mark in omitting it in Lk 3:4 (c.f. "and fire" in Lk 3:16), though
          he may also have been influenced by the same motivations as Matthew.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

          ----------

          On 27/8/09 3:10 pm, "gentdave1" <gentile_dave@...> wrote:

          > Last time I looked at this one I remember it looked like an insertion in
          > Mark's text. I think Fledderman makes the argument that the "Q" version is
          > earlier, and may have some valid points. Also, it looks like an interpolation
          > in Mark. You can take it out and the text is smoother.
          >
          > My hypothesis would be that it is originally authored in Matthew and/or a
          > saying source. Luke picks it up from there, and it is a late addition to the
          > text of Mark.
          >
          > Dave Gentile
          > Naperville IL
          >
          > --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> In Mk 1:2 par, both Mt and Lk do not have the Malachi quote.
          >> Both cite it later at Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27, but not here. Did they both omit it,
          >> because it is not from Isaiah? Did they read it at all in their copy of
          >> Mark? Did they have a different source?
          >> What do you think?
          >>
          >>
          >> Best wishes
          >> Wieland
          >> <><
          >> --------------------------
          >> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          >> mailto:wie@...
          >> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          >> Textcritical commentary:
          >> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dave G / Wieland Willker / Ron Price From: Bruce Partly from another angle, in response to Dave G and (later) to Ron (see
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 29, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            Cc: GPG
            In Response To: Dave G / Wieland Willker / Ron Price
            From: Bruce

            Partly from another angle, in response to Dave G and (later) to Ron (see at
            end for the joke implicit in this):

            RON: Firstly there is no textual evidence for the omission of the Malachi
            quotation in Mk 1:2.

            BRUCE: Meaning, no manuscript variant evidence from the public period of the
            text. But we may here be talking about the growth period of one or more of
            these texts, in which case the manuscript evidence, helpful as it always is,
            may not be the end of the matter. It surely lets us fine down the discussion
            to an early period, but that seems to be where the discussion was already.

            DAVE: Last time I looked at this one [Mk 1:2] I remember it looked like an
            insertion in Mark's text. . . You can take it out and the text is smoother.

            BRUCE: That is a valid part, and in simple cases a necessary part, of the
            test for an interpolation. So far so good. But it is perilous to use without
            its other part, namely, that the piece in question is also in some way at
            odds with its context. Mark is so episodic in structure that there is hardly
            a passage which could not be removed without benefit to the surrounding
            text, up to and including removing the whole thing (perhaps the simplest
            solution of all to the Synoptic Problem, but still). We need a second
            criterion.

            I don't myself see that this piece is out of place in Mark. So also:

            RON: Secondly it appears quite natural in the text of Mark (apart from the
            erroneous attribution to Isaiah), where it was probably the author's prior
            plan to present John the Baptist as God's messenger.

            BRUCE: Exactly. And we might note the erroneous attribution to Isaiah. It is
            typical of many of the Minor Agreements (which is what you have left when
            the Major Agreement have been moved to another part of the worktable, thus
            preventing an integral approach to the problem) that they tend to correct
            Mark's errors, make good his shortcomings, or clean up his references. This
            detail would be in the third category. Nothing remotely surprising. As Ron
            later put it:

            RON: But his [Fleddermann's] synoptic theory does not allow him even to
            contemplate the simpler view that here Matthew could have made improvements
            to Mark just as he did, for instance, in many of the 'Minor Agreements', and
            most notably in the prologue to Jesus' ministry with the grand genealogy and
            birth narratives.

            DAVE: I think Fleddermann makes the argument that the "Q" version is
            earlier, and may have some valid points.

            BRUCE: Fleddermann, Mark and Q, 25-31. I find the argument thin, in that it
            omits some aspects, and begins with the "Q" end, that is, it assumes Q. For
            me, Q still requires to be demonstrated. And if demonstrated de novo, I
            suspect that it would wind up quite a different document (M Goulder thinks
            that it would vanish altogether. He may be right, but I am not quite ready
            to go that far).

            RON: Thirdly . . . Fleddermann puts forward four arguments that Mark was
            here dependent on Q (Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 370). His
            confidence is not justified. In all four he claims in effect that 'Q' has
            the better (more natural) text or context and therefore Mark was dependent
            on Q. If one were to assume that Mt 11:2-11 // Lk 7:18-28 was part of Q as
            he does, then his arguments seem plausible. . .

            BRUCE: Right. These discussions tend to ignore that the placement of the
            Malachi saying is different in all three texts, but that they all have it
            (in Mt and Lk without an attribution, but at least not with a wrong
            attribution). Wieland's original statement of the problem actually included
            this important datum:

            WIELAND: In Mk 1:2 par, both Mt and Lk do not have the Malachi quote.
            Both cite it later at Mt 11:10/Lk 7:27, but not here.

            BRUCE: Exactly, and this is important. The rearrangements of Mk in Mt, and
            of both Mk and Mt in Lk, are among the clearest indications we have of what
            the respective authors were up to, and also of what they relied on, *and
            reacted against,* in carrying out their respective intentions. If we have
            explained the relocation of Mk's Malachi saying in Mt (no longer at the
            beginning, but following the socalled Sermon on the Mount), and its further
            relocation in Lk (amid a bunch of original Lk compositions, be it noted),
            then we are well along toward understanding the Synoptic process.

            RON: Luke had his eye on Matthew as well as Mark in omitting it in Lk 3:4
            (c.f. "and fire" in Lk 3:16), though he may also have been influenced by the
            same motivations as Matthew.

            BRUCE: Right. This is the kind of thing we need. A larger view of the
            passage, and the factors that bear on its use by the respective authors, is
            a much healthier way of going about these things. I think that only so are
            we likely to get anywhere. (Always assuming that somebody *wants* to get
            anywhere).

            There are larger issues also. Joseph Verheyden, in his review of "Mark and
            Q," pointed out one of the major problems with including this passage in Q,
            namely, that it violates the supposed "sayings" genre, and makes Q a
            narrative of the life of Jesus; that is, a narrative gospel in the sense of
            Mark et al (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Dec 1966 p413: "What is
            presented as a support turns out to be a frontal attack on the Two-Source
            Hypothesis; the refinement indeed leads to its end").

            If the hypothesis of a sayings source leads, in its working out, to a source
            that is not after all a sayings source, then the hypothesis is certainly in
            some trouble. At minimum, it needs initial restatement. If the initial
            restatement says that Q is a narrative gospel, then the paucity of other
            narrative material in Q comes up for notice, and its lack of a Crucifixion
            narrative becomes after all a problem, perhaps a crux. Fleddermann does not
            seem to recognize these problems, but there they are all the same.

            DAVE: My hypothesis would be that it is originally authored in Matthew
            and/or a saying source. Luke picks it up from there, and it is a late
            addition to the text of Mark.

            BRUCE: Well, but that and what else? I need to see more before I can take
            "late addition to the text of Mark" as a serious possibility. How many other
            passages would be subject to the same possibility, and how similar are they,
            and to what extent can a single intelligible motive be found for their
            addition?

            One of the hardest things for Markan posteriorists to explain is: How could
            Mark have copied/conflated Mt/Lk, a situation in which all he needed to
            write good Greek was just to keep his eye fixed and his pen moving, and yet
            nevertheless, without any precedent in his exemplars, come up with what is
            universally regarded as inferior Greek? A second is, How could Mark have
            conflated Mt/Lk, which are both extremely respectful to the family of Jesus
            (especially if you include Luke in Acts, where the Brother of Jesus has
            become the acknowledged Head of the Christian Church), and yet come up with
            a text which not only omits the family of Jesus at all places where his
            exemplars have them, but includes a brand new and thus gratuitous incident
            which puts them in the worst possible light - as unbelievers and indeed as
            opponents?

            Such cases, to me, are reminders of why we need to require a rational, a
            conceivably real, scenario for a hypothesis before we entertain that
            hypothesis seriously. Otherwise, the whole thing is too easy, and too
            subject to systematic whim and momentary convenience.

            To come at last to Wieland's original questions.

            WIELAND: Did they both omit it, because it is not from Isaiah?

            BRUCE: No. They don't omit it, they move it elsewhere. For reasons which can
            be supplied if desired.

            WIELAND: Did they read it at all in their copy of Mark?

            BRUCE: That seems to be the simplest solution: the one that adequately
            covers the observed facts with the least waste motion.

            WIELAND: Did they have a different source?

            BRUCE: Same answer: Not proved, and to my mind, not indicated. The best
            evidence for Mt/Lk having based themselves on a slightly different text of
            Mk than the Mk we now have is surely the Minor Agreements. But these turn
            out to be, for the most part, capable of explanation within the scenario Mk
            > Mt > Lk. There may be a residue of cases which are better explained
            otherwise, but its extent and implications remain to be demonstrated.

            FINAL COMMENT

            Looking back on the above before sending it, I guess I have to smile. I have
            just mentioned as a very natural scenario Mk > Mt > Lk, with many little
            Minor Agreements where Lk agrees with Mt's improvements in Mk, but wants to
            state them in his very own way. We can read the above note as an example of
            that relationship, with Dave G playing the role of Mk, Ron (so to speak, Mt)
            coming along with disagreements, and myself (Lk) largely agreeing with Ron,
            but restating his points in my own way, and with some additional and
            original material.

            Those who were at SBL 2007 (or who save their Synoptic messages) are
            entitled to an extra dose of amusement, since on those occasions I have held
            that Luke was composed in two phases, one before he had encountered Matthew,
            and one after. Similarly, my comments above were originally composed in
            response to Dave, but were not posted until Ron's message had appeared, and
            were accordingly revised and somewhat rearranged from their original form,
            in order to take account of Ron's remarks.

            Seems to be nothing new under that particular sun.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • gentdave1
            I note a couple of points about this passage that incline me towards my view. First of all by saying this is an addition to Mark, I mean an addition made after
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 30, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I note a couple of points about this passage that incline me towards my view.

              First of all by saying this is an addition to Mark, I mean an addition made after it has left the authors full control, that is after "publication" date, or at least after the date where it shifted from "private" to "proprietary". Obviously, the change still has to be early enough, however, for it to eventually replace the original text in all existing copies.

              One thing that fits with this is the misattribution. The early layers of Mark, in my view, show a deep familiarity with the OT, in fact he seems, in my view, to assume more on the part of his audience than may seem reasonable to us. I see it as unlikely that this author made this mistake.

              Another point is that Luke groups this material outside of the material he gathers from Mark, and with material he gathered from elsewhere (Matthew/Q/Luke's mind, etc...). At other points when this happens, I find the best solution to be that Luke did not see this bit of text in his copy of Mark. This passage seems to fit that pattern, in my view. That is - Luke tells us he didn't see in in Mark, by not placing it with the material he got from Mark.

              Finally, Fledderman's argument about the word SOU, sticks in my mind. Without going back to review in detail, he argues that SOU is not in the OT passages, and is a slightly poor fit in Mark, but well suited to its "Q" environment. This may indicate that the passage in Mark is dependent on a "Q-like" passage containing the word SOU.

              Not exactly an iron clad case, but that's why I'm inclined to see it the way I do.

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, IL
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Dave G On: Mk 1:2 From: Bruce DAVE: I note a couple of points about this passage that incline me towards my view. First of
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 30, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                To: Synoptic
                Cc: GPG
                In Response To: Dave G
                On: Mk 1:2
                From: Bruce

                DAVE: I note a couple of points about this passage that incline me towards
                my view.

                First of all by saying this is an addition to Mark, I mean an addition made
                after it has left the authors full control, that is after "publication"
                date, or at least after the date where it shifted from "private" to
                "proprietary". Obviously, the change still has to be early enough, however,
                for it to eventually replace the original text in all existing copies.

                BRUCE: If the book has left its protected state (in the care of a person or
                institution, with limited distribution outside), then it is in the "copying"
                period. More or less by definition, changes made at this level are copyist
                changes or improvements, and should show up in manuscripts. But as Ron
                points out, there is no confirmation on that side. Not even Bezae, whose
                ancestor diverged very early from the ancestor of Vaticanus, shows a
                difference (of this type; there are some tiny changes that don't affect the
                present argument, or at least I think they don't). The proposed addition is
                still possible, but I wouldn't say it is strongly supported.

                If such a copyist improvement WERE made, what was its agenda? I cannot but
                think that the supposed copyist was aware of one or both of the Mt/Lk
                parallels, and is here conflating one or both with Mk. Since neither of
                those passages identifies the source of the quote, our copyist might have
                felt is was OK to stick it under Mk's "Isaiah" rubric. Can we say which of
                Mt/Lk was the immediate source? No, since the quote is identical in Mt/Lk.
                Then it might have been either, or both together. But the wording if that
                identical quote differs slightly from the form in Mk, so we are positing an
                altered addition. (Both have a final EMPROSQEN SOU "before you" which is
                lacking in the Mk version).

                Here is a problem for the Markan Posteriorists, and I think also for the
                present theory of a single late addition to Mark. I thus don't regard this
                first argument as tending weightily toward the given conclusion.

                DAVE: One thing that fits with this is the misattribution. The early layers
                of Mark, in my view, show a deep familiarity with the OT, in fact he seems,
                in my view, to assume more on the part of his audience than may seem
                reasonable to us. I see it as unlikely that this author made this mistake.

                BRUCE: I guess it depends on one's layer theory. I note in passing that it
                is welcome news that someone HAS a layer theory. My own impression is that
                the early layers of Mk are written by someone, probably the same person
                updating himself, who is a little off-center in his Greek, a little
                breathlessly oral (rather than written) in his delivery, and a little
                careless with his facts, including his quotes. The later layers of Mk, as I
                see them, depart from all these details, and that perhaps second accretional
                author is pretty adroit with his OT allusions (not quotes), which he works
                subtly into the texture of things.

                DAVE: Another point is that Luke groups this material outside of the
                material he gathers from Mark, and with material he gathered from elsewhere
                (Matthew/Q/Luke's mind, etc...). At other points when this happens, I find
                the best solution to be that Luke did not see this bit of text in his copy
                of Mark. This passage seems to fit that pattern, in my view. That is - Luke
                tells us he didn't see in in Mark, by not placing it with the material he
                got from Mark.

                BRUCE: I doubt that Luke is trying to tell us anything at all in the way of
                self-source criticism; he is probably trying to convince us that his
                integrated account of salvation history is the one to go with. Given that
                Luke is after Mark and also after Matthew, the question of why he puts the
                piece which Matthew removed from its Markan location into a still different
                location needs to be assessed against Luke's attitude toward Matthew; it
                doesn't directly relate to Lk vis-a-vis Mark.

                But the determinative case is surely that of Mt: How can we explain what
                changes he made in Mk? I haven't an answer to propose (nor one to cite; the
                only detailed studies of the Mt ~ Mk relation I have so far found are those
                by Bacon, Farrer, and Goulder), except that I notice that Mt has invented a
                scene with John in prison, hearing about the doings of his former protege,
                and sending to inquire about them. The historical plausibility of this is
                somewhere near nil, but anyway, Matthew is in charge, and that is what he
                does. Two things may be relevant to Matthew's state of mind. (1) He is aware
                of the gaucherie in the original Mark quotation, and rather than have Mark
                cite two scriptures by name, he silently removes the erroneous one, leaving
                a more correct but perfectly adequate Mark. He improves Mark. (2) He notices
                that John the B drops out of sight after Jesus begins preaching (save for
                the highly unlikely execution story in Mk, which reads like a late, if still
                authorial, addition to Mk), and he thinks the story would be stronger if
                John not merely predicted great things for Jesus at the beginning, but
                verified his own prediction later on. Again, he doubtless feels that he is
                strengthening the story this way, and mirabile dictu, here is this stray bit
                of mislabeled prediction from Mark which he can slot into his story, by way
                of reintroducing John to his readers. [I here decline to follow out the
                details of the mixed Malachi/Exodus citation; maybe later].

                I think what Mt has seemingly done to Mk here is authorially intelligible,
                in both of its aspects well-intentioned toward Mk, though determined to
                leave the reader with a less incorrect and more persuasive document.

                DAVE: Finally, Fledderman's argument about the word SOU, sticks in my mind.
                Without going back to review in detail, he argues that SOU is not in the OT
                passages, and is a slightly poor fit in Mark, but well suited to its "Q"
                environment. This may indicate that the passage in Mark is dependent on a
                "Q-like" passage containing the word SOU.

                BRUCE: So much for attempts to banish the OT angle. See, ad interim,
                Beale/Carson 38f, 114f. It has been noted by previous generations that Mt is
                strictly Septuagintal in his OT, save for a special group of passages,
                possibly to be attributed to a second redaction of Mt, in which there is
                unmistakable contact with the MT; that is, we may have a second authorial
                hand in Mt who knows Hebrew as well as Greek. But again, this is not the
                paragraph in which to follow out these possibilities.

                DAVE: Not exactly an iron clad case, but that's why I'm inclined to see it
                the way I do.

                BRUCE: It seems to me that there are other possibilities here, all of which
                look stronger to me on present evidence. Not that all relevant aspects have
                yet come up for discussion.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              • David Gentile
                I m only going to comment on one point here. I don t have time to look at the specific details of Mark 1:2 at the moment. But I think it is a near certainty
                Message 7 of 8 , Sep 2, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm only going to comment on one point here. I don't have time to look at the specific details of Mark 1:2 at the moment. But I think it is a near certainty that some of the original published versions of NT documents have been altered in all surviving copies. One way we could look at this is to look at some small set of our best surviving copies, then look at a list of details and see how many times the earliest version survives in say 1,2, or 3 copies. We could estimate the distribution and from that estimate how often the original text should be expected to have survived in zero copies. We don't have to do the calculation to know the answer is clearly not zero.

                  However, it is still a difficult case to make that something we find in all surviving copies is not original. It can be done of course, but it is difficult. This is easier in some parts of Mark, however, I believe, because I think Luke does provide us a witness to an earlier version of Mark at some points. Thus on occasion the original text of Mark survives in Luke but not in Mark. Mark 1:2 may be an example of this (or not), but there are better examples, I believe.

                  Dave Gentile



                  David Gentile
                  Statistician

                  Context4 Healthcare, Inc.
                  2056 Westings Avenue
                  Suite 220 Naperville, IL 60563

                  Phone: (630) 321-2985
                  Fax: (630) 654-1607
                  Email: David.Gentile@...<mailto:David.Gentile@...>

                  ________________________________
                  From: gpg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:gpg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
                  Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:37 PM
                  To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: GPG
                  Subject: [GPG] Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Mk 1:2



                  To: Synoptic
                  Cc: GPG
                  In Response To: Dave G
                  On: Mk 1:2
                  From: Bruce

                  DAVE: I note a couple of points about this passage that incline me towards
                  my view.

                  First of all by saying this is an addition to Mark, I mean an addition made
                  after it has left the authors full control, that is after "publication"
                  date, or at least after the date where it shifted from "private" to
                  "proprietary". Obviously, the change still has to be early enough, however,
                  for it to eventually replace the original text in all existing copies.

                  BRUCE: If the book has left its protected state (in the care of a person or
                  institution, with limited distribution outside), then it is in the "copying"
                  period. More or less by definition, changes made at this level are copyist
                  changes or improvements, and should show up in manuscripts. But as Ron
                  points out, there is no confirmation on that side. Not even Bezae, whose
                  ancestor diverged very early from the ancestor of Vaticanus, shows a
                  difference (of this type; there are some tiny changes that don't affect the
                  present argument, or at least I think they don't). The proposed addition is
                  still possible, but I wouldn't say it is strongly supported.

                  If such a copyist improvement WERE made, what was its agenda? I cannot but
                  think that the supposed copyist was aware of one or both of the Mt/Lk
                  parallels, and is here conflating one or both with Mk. Since neither of
                  those passages identifies the source of the quote, our copyist might have
                  felt is was OK to stick it under Mk's "Isaiah" rubric. Can we say which of
                  Mt/Lk was the immediate source? No, since the quote is identical in Mt/Lk.
                  Then it might have been either, or both together. But the wording if that
                  identical quote differs slightly from the form in Mk, so we are positing an
                  altered addition. (Both have a final EMPROSQEN SOU "before you" which is
                  lacking in the Mk version).

                  Here is a problem for the Markan Posteriorists, and I think also for the
                  present theory of a single late addition to Mark. I thus don't regard this
                  first argument as tending weightily toward the given conclusion.

                  DAVE: One thing that fits with this is the misattribution. The early layers
                  of Mark, in my view, show a deep familiarity with the OT, in fact he seems,
                  in my view, to assume more on the part of his audience than may seem
                  reasonable to us. I see it as unlikely that this author made this mistake.

                  BRUCE: I guess it depends on one's layer theory. I note in passing that it
                  is welcome news that someone HAS a layer theory. My own impression is that
                  the early layers of Mk are written by someone, probably the same person
                  updating himself, who is a little off-center in his Greek, a little
                  breathlessly oral (rather than written) in his delivery, and a little
                  careless with his facts, including his quotes. The later layers of Mk, as I
                  see them, depart from all these details, and that perhaps second accretional
                  author is pretty adroit with his OT allusions (not quotes), which he works
                  subtly into the texture of things.

                  DAVE: Another point is that Luke groups this material outside of the
                  material he gathers from Mark, and with material he gathered from elsewhere
                  (Matthew/Q/Luke's mind, etc...). At other points when this happens, I find
                  the best solution to be that Luke did not see this bit of text in his copy
                  of Mark. This passage seems to fit that pattern, in my view. That is - Luke
                  tells us he didn't see in in Mark, by not placing it with the material he
                  got from Mark.

                  BRUCE: I doubt that Luke is trying to tell us anything at all in the way of
                  self-source criticism; he is probably trying to convince us that his
                  integrated account of salvation history is the one to go with. Given that
                  Luke is after Mark and also after Matthew, the question of why he puts the
                  piece which Matthew removed from its Markan location into a still different
                  location needs to be assessed against Luke's attitude toward Matthew; it
                  doesn't directly relate to Lk vis-a-vis Mark.

                  But the determinative case is surely that of Mt: How can we explain what
                  changes he made in Mk? I haven't an answer to propose (nor one to cite; the
                  only detailed studies of the Mt ~ Mk relation I have so far found are those
                  by Bacon, Farrer, and Goulder), except that I notice that Mt has invented a
                  scene with John in prison, hearing about the doings of his former protege,
                  and sending to inquire about them. The historical plausibility of this is
                  somewhere near nil, but anyway, Matthew is in charge, and that is what he
                  does. Two things may be relevant to Matthew's state of mind. (1) He is aware
                  of the gaucherie in the original Mark quotation, and rather than have Mark
                  cite two scriptures by name, he silently removes the erroneous one, leaving
                  a more correct but perfectly adequate Mark. He improves Mark. (2) He notices
                  that John the B drops out of sight after Jesus begins preaching (save for
                  the highly unlikely execution story in Mk, which reads like a late, if still
                  authorial, addition to Mk), and he thinks the story would be stronger if
                  John not merely predicted great things for Jesus at the beginning, but
                  verified his own prediction later on. Again, he doubtless feels that he is
                  strengthening the story this way, and mirabile dictu, here is this stray bit
                  of mislabeled prediction from Mark which he can slot into his story, by way
                  of reintroducing John to his readers. [I here decline to follow out the
                  details of the mixed Malachi/Exodus citation; maybe later].

                  I think what Mt has seemingly done to Mk here is authorially intelligible,
                  in both of its aspects well-intentioned toward Mk, though determined to
                  leave the reader with a less incorrect and more persuasive document.

                  DAVE: Finally, Fledderman's argument about the word SOU, sticks in my mind.
                  Without going back to review in detail, he argues that SOU is not in the OT
                  passages, and is a slightly poor fit in Mark, but well suited to its "Q"
                  environment. This may indicate that the passage in Mark is dependent on a
                  "Q-like" passage containing the word SOU.

                  BRUCE: So much for attempts to banish the OT angle. See, ad interim,
                  Beale/Carson 38f, 114f. It has been noted by previous generations that Mt is
                  strictly Septuagintal in his OT, save for a special group of passages,
                  possibly to be attributed to a second redaction of Mt, in which there is
                  unmistakable contact with the MT; that is, we may have a second authorial
                  hand in Mt who knows Hebrew as well as Greek. But again, this is not the
                  paragraph in which to follow out these possibilities.

                  DAVE: Not exactly an iron clad case, but that's why I'm inclined to see it
                  the way I do.

                  BRUCE: It seems to me that there are other possibilities here, all of which
                  look stronger to me on present evidence. Not that all relevant aspects have
                  yet come up for discussion.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  Warring States Project
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Wieland Willker
                  Thanks to all who contributed to this question. I haven t anything to add. The beginning of Mk poses several, at present, unsolvable questions. I agree with
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 2, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks to all who contributed to this question.
                    I haven't anything to add.
                    The beginning of Mk poses several, at present, unsolvable questions.

                    I agree with David that there are points where "something we find in all
                    surviving copies is not original".
                    This has been suggested earlier for Acts where D has large lacunae. Since at
                    several points D alone preserves the original text (acc. to NA), one can
                    calculate how many times the original is lost at those passages where D is
                    not extant.

                    Best wishes
                    Wieland
                    <><
                    --------------------------
                    Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                    mailto:wie@...
                    http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                    Textcritical commentary:
                    http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.